Vic bias and the media

[Sweet Jesus]

Mark Robinson wrote it so it must be true.

You may be missing the point. I've cited it as an example of dumb coverage. I'm not assuming it's true. Quite the opposite.

 

[the harry]

^^^^

There is a difference between Herald Sun / Ch 7 New Melbourne etc being biased and national football syndicated shows

The former is fine and is the same you get for local news in Adelaide and Perth too -I live in Melbourne and totally understand that I wont complain about the HS focusing on Vic clubs

But Fox Footy / Ch 7 / AFL360 / Footy Classified / The AFL itself should not be biased and they clearly are

Also Kane Cornes in 17 was hoping (and it came true) that Adelaide would choke so that's why he talked them up

As it was the whole GF preview that morning was a Ch 7 love fest with Richo and Mick Molloy

West Coast win the flag and Ch7 cut to Buckley in the coache's box over celebrating Eagles players

fu** off

It's a bit frustrating that one of the enduring images of the 18 GF at the siren is Bucks.

Like, sure seeing the devastation on the pies fans near me after they'd been so mouthy in the first quarter was nice but you don't cheer for the opposition to lose and celebrate that.

As for the thread, laughable that people would try and defend the Vic centric view of national media coverage. Fine to argue whether it's an issue or not, but the existence is clear as day.

 

[Gavin Excell]

Media will be biased in each state towards clubs of that state.

Real issue is when the Commission is biased

 

[Brick Loosener]

You may be missing the point. I've cited it as an example of dumb coverage. I'm not assuming it's true. Quite the opposite.

What else was he going to write in March to fill some page space?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Media will be biased in each state towards clubs of that state.

What about nationwide coverage?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

What else was he going to write in March to fill some page space?

You're right. That was the only possible story/presentation.

 

[Gavin Excell]

What about nationwide coverage?

When you use term bias do you mean they cover Vic sides more?
If so, isnt that just a product of playing to your audience where majority viewers are Vic?

 

[Brick Loosener]

What about nationwide coverage?

Of what?

 

[fomoco04]

Media will be biased in each state towards clubs of that state.

Real issue is when the Commission is biased

Your dead right. State based media SHOULD be biased. That's how they sell to their public. But organisation that's attempting to pass itself of as national should at least try and make it look like there is some amount of semblance to ALL stake holders.

Remember I pay the same amount of money per month for kayo, Fox etc as a supporter from any other state, but with far worse outcomes as far as even reporting and coverage is concerned.

 

[Papa G]

When you use term bias do you mean they cover Vic sides more?
If so, isnt that just a product of playing to your audience where majority viewers are Vic?

But if you've got a national audience, why aren't you talking about West Coast as much as you are talking about Collingwood? They have just as many supporters. Why aren't you talking about Adelaide as much as you are talking about Richmond? The Crows have more supporters than Richmond do. Do Geelong supporters like hearing about Collingwood all the time just because they reside in the same state? I personally couldn't give a flying **** about the Crows. In fact the less the better..

 

[RUNVS]

Your dead right. State based media SHOULD be biased. That's how they sell to their public. But organisation that's attempting to pass itself of as national should at least try and make it look like there is some amount of semblance to ALL stake holders.

Remember I pay the same amount of money per month for kayo, Fox etc as a supporter from any other state, but with far worse outcomes as far as even reporting and coverage is concerned.

Be glad you are not a Fremantle or Port Adelaide fan as I suspect you would not even realise they were in the competition based on coverage they get.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

When you use term bias do you mean they cover Vic sides more?
If so, isnt that just a product of playing to your audience where majority viewers are Vic?

I think that can be determined by news value. If all the interstate sides are stumbling along in mid-table mediocrity, it's understandable they'd be discussed less. That's still open to interpretation but I think you can certainly justify talking more about Collingwood and Richmond when they're contending than Freo or GC, for example.

What I find amazing is the blindspot on non-Victorian sides and the way opinion/comment so often gets filtered through a Victorian lens. It takes them ages to wake up to the fact that interstate sides are going well or if they have emerging players who are top-drawer.

I apologise for bringing it back to WC again, but I vividly recall 2018, when none of those "experts" tipped WC to win a home PF against Melbourne. And then they were stunned by the result? What had they been watching all year?

And then the reaction after WC winning the flag. Garry Lyon and Tim Watson explaining why they got blindsided because WC are in WA so they don't see as much of them. That's worse than simply making a wrong prediction, which can happen to anyone. I mean, WC won 10 on the trot that year, smacked Richmond in Perth and beat the Pies at the G during H&A en route to finishing 2nd. And they're like "yeah nah didn't see that coming". What would it have required for them to pay attention?

And then last year, I remember Elliot Yeo had a good game against Melbourne and suddenly Lyon was calling him the "best player in the comp". It was such obvious overcompensation for sleeping on WC that even Watson pointed it out, saying Lyon "hadn't heard of him two weeks earlier".

You also saw it in the coverage of WC's pursuit of Tim Kelly, with a ton of the coverage peddling the narrative that WC would have to acquiesce to Geelong's demands for a top 10 pick or trade a required player out. I remember Damien Barrett insisting WC couldn't possibly get Kelly with their existing draft hand, although that's exactly what happened relatively early in the trade period. Seriously, what's wrong with these muppets? You even had some folks insisting Geelong should play hardball to the extent of forcing Kelly to the draft or that players nominating clubs should now be taboo and Geelong should force him to Freo for a better deal. Why? When did this become an issue? A strong interstate club was poised to poach a gun from a Victorian club so there has to be a full press against it? Or at least to make sure WC sell the farm in return? It's crazy. Uncontracted players nominate clubs all the time and there's never such backlash. But WC go after Kelly and heads explode.

On a side note, I also think digital media has upended this old idea of audience being so rigidly defined geographically. Your audience is wherever they are at the time. Sure, there might be a lot of folks in Victoria but the coverage is now distributed online so location isn't the be all and end all it once was. I live in Hong Kong but listen to the SEN show as a podcast on my phone, I stream Fox Footy shows on my laptop and watch clips of other shows on YouTube. The idea that the audience is defined purely in geographic terms has surely expired. Even then, that's not a reason to say crazy shit or be absurdly biased or ill-informed. Just call it sensibly without pandering to what you think your supposedly all Victorian audience wants to hear. It's a national game and I think most supporters, while inevitably self-interested, have grasped that more effectively than some of these commentators who are stuck in an old paradigm.

Sorry for the length of that. You put one in my hitting zone.

 

[Gavin Excell]

But if you've got a national audience, why aren't you talking about West Coast as much as you are talking about Collingwood? They have just as many supporters. Why aren't you talking about Adelaide as much as you are talking about Richmond? The Crows have more supporters than Richmond do. Do Geelong supporters like hearing about Collingwood all the time just because they reside in the same state? I personally couldn't give a flying fu** about the Crows. In fact the less the better..

Believe me not all Vic clubs get same coverage within Vic media

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Of what?

Guess.

 

[mightymouse75]

Welcome to the world of centralisation.
95% of the media comes out of victoria. So that's what you get. Vicco premadonnas flapping their very Victorian mouths..

 

[Big Crow]

Ask yourself honestly - If this ridiculous incident in the Barossa had involved Collingwood, Essendon, Richmond or Carlton would clowns like McLure and Russell have gone anywhere near as hard at it?

 

[Colonial]

Ask yourself honestly - If this ridiculous incident in the Barossa had involved Collingwood, Essendon, Richmond or Carlton would clowns like McLure and Russell have gone anywhere near as hard at it?

Probably would of tried defending it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Papa G]

Probably would of tried defending it.

Taking footy to the regions. Giving back to the community.

 

[Big Crow]

Probably would of tried defending it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

“My source informs me that no more than two players were ever within 1.5m of each other at the same time, so it was really just four pairs and I’d expect the AFL to tick this off as the new norm moving forward.”

 

[juss]

How can that be? I thought all Victorians had joined forces?

I don't know? You might be someone who takes the front page of a junk newspaper as gospel.

 

[Established1870]

Be glad you are not a Fremantle or Port Adelaide fan as I suspect you would not even realise they were in the competition based on coverage they get.

This times a thousand. I've lived in Victoria for the past 3 years and have no issue with the Victorian media talking about Victorian teams 24/7. I have a massive issue with the Adelaide media who pretty much feel like the propaganda department for the Crows and it's the same in WA for their two sides.

 

[juss]

What is the title of this thread?

So this is the thread to whinge about VIC media bias knowing full well it happens with media in all states - noted.

 

[juss]

In 2007 AFL opened a commission into figuring out why Victoria had not won the premiership since 2000, so 6 years in total, but from 2007 onwards non-Victorian sides have won the premiership 2 times in 13 years and yet there has not even been a peep out of the AFL about trying to figure out why. The reason of course is the AFL don't care too much if non-Victorian teams are not winning the premiership. They only care if Victorian teams aren't.

On average probalities Victorian sides should be winning 55% of premierships now. Given since 2007 we had 16 teams and new expansion sides, the probability would have been 63%

Each year before that there'd have been a 37% chance of a Non VIC side winning it. For it to happen 6 consecutive years the odds of that would be 0.0025% chance.

Pretty low probability for a series of events. Weird to do an enquiry, but the data suggests it's valid to look in to.

Since 2008, ignoring expansion sides because most assumed they'd take at least 5 years to win a flag, interstate sides should have won roughly 4-5 flags. But it's more likely to get a run of Victorian flags given the greater than even odds each year.

 

[deltablues]

I think that can be determined by news value. If all the interstate sides are stumbling along in mid-table mediocrity, it's understandable they'd be discussed less. That's still open to interpretation but I think you can certainly justify talking more about Collingwood and Richmond when they're contending than Freo or GC, for example.

What I find amazing is the blindspot on non-Victorian sides and the way opinion/comment so often gets filtered through a Victorian lens. It takes them ages to wake up to the fact that interstate sides are going well or if they have emerging players who are top-drawer.

I apologise for bringing it back to WC again, but I vividly recall 2018, when none of those "experts" tipped WC to win a home PF against Melbourne. And then they were stunned by the result? What had they been watching all year?

And then the reaction after WC winning the flag. Garry Lyon and Tim Watson explaining why they got blindsided because WC are in WA so they don't see as much of them. That's worse than simply making a wrong prediction, which can happen to anyone. I mean, WC won 10 on the trot that year, smacked Richmond in Perth and beat the Pies at the G during H&A en route to finishing 2nd. And they're like "yeah nah didn't see that coming". What would it have required for them to pay attention?

And then last year, I remember Elliot Yeo had a good game against Melbourne and suddenly Lyon was calling him the "best player in the comp". It was such obvious overcompensation for sleeping on WC that even Watson pointed it out, saying Lyon "hadn't heard of him two weeks earlier".

You also saw it in the coverage of WC's pursuit of Tim Kelly, with a ton of the coverage peddling the narrative that WC would have to acquiesce to Geelong's demands for a top 10 pick or trade a required player out. I remember Damien Barrett insisting WC couldn't possibly get Kelly with their existing draft hand, although that's exactly what happened relatively early in the trade period. Seriously, what's wrong with these muppets? You even had some folks insisting Geelong should play hardball to the extent of forcing Kelly to the draft or that players nominating clubs should now be taboo and Geelong should force him to Freo for a better deal. Why? When did this become an issue? A strong interstate club was poised to poach a gun from a Victorian club so there has to be a full press against it? Or at least to make sure WC sell the farm in return? It's crazy. Uncontracted players nominate clubs all the time and there's never such backlash. But WC go after Kelly and heads explode.

On a side note, I also think digital media has upended this old idea of audience being so rigidly defined geographically. Your audience is wherever they are at the time. Sure, there might be a lot of folks in Victoria but the coverage is now distributed online so location isn't the be all and end all it once was. I live in Hong Kong but listen to the SEN show as a podcast on my phone, I stream Fox Footy shows on my laptop and watch clips of other shows on YouTube. The idea that the audience is defined purely in geographic terms has surely expired. Even then, that's not a reason to say crazy shit or be absurdly biased or ill-informed. Just call it sensibly without pandering to what you think your supposedly all Victorian audience wants to hear. It's a national game and I think most supporters, while inevitably self-interested, have grasped that more effectively than some of these commentators who are stuck in an old paradigm.

Sorry for the length of that. You put one in my hitting zone.

The AFL is the VFL re-labelled. Thus it is viewed thru Victorian lens.

Continuing to describe non-Vic teams as "interstate teams" after 30+ years of a so-called national comp illustrates my point.

 

[Rich01]

Ask yourself honestly - If this ridiculous incident in the Barossa had involved Collingwood, Essendon, Richmond or Carlton would clowns like McLure and Russell have gone anywhere near as hard at it?

Probably. The media was all over Dusty’s chopstick incident. They were after Wallace for months, and even chased Jack Riewoldt out of training at the time.

If like to see some analysis of this perception of bias. Is there any indication that more than 10/18 of national coverage is Victorian?

Or are some looking for it more and being clouded by confirmation bias?